Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

Delhi High Court Upholds Constitutionality Validity of Section 5(v) of HMA, 1955; Rejects Plea Challenging Prohibition of Marriage Between Sapindas”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today upheld the constitutionality of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), which prohibits marriages between sapindas, unless sanctioned by custom. The judgment was passed in the case of W.P.(C) 910/2024, where the petitioner, Neetu Grover, challenged the section citing its violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The bench, comprising the Acting Chief Justice and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, observed, “The Petitioner seeks to challenge Section 5(v) of the HMA Act on the ground that though her marriage with her distant cousin Mr. Gagan Grover was consensual, he has abdicated his responsibilities towards the Petitioner and her son by taking recourse to the impugned Section.” The Court noted the presumption in favor of the constitutionality of statutes enacted by the Parliament and emphasized that a statute can be declared unconstitutional only under specific established grounds.

In dismissing the petition, the Court remarked, “We are of the considered opinion that, no tenable grounds in law for challenging the said impugned provision have been placed before this Court during arguments or pleaded in the petition.”

The petitioner had argued that the impugned Section was violative of Article 14 as it denied her the right to be in a valid marriage with Mr. Gagan Grover, her distant cousin, due to the lack of proof of custom in her community. However, the Court found that the Petitioner’s marriage fell within the prohibited category of sapindas as recognized under the HMA and was not saved by any exception of custom or usage.

Further, the Court held, “This Court is unable to accept the contention of the Petitioner that the impugned section is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the exception in the impugned Section is only for marriages between persons on the basis of custom having force of law, which requires stringent proof and its existence is to be adjudicated upon by Court of law.”

Date of Decision: 22nd January, 2024

NEETU GROVER VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

 

Latest Legal News